 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 161 A.2d 69 |
Supreme Court of New Jersey |
1960 |
|
Chapter |
16 |
Title |
Products Liability |
|
Page |
644 |
Topic |
Next Assault On The Citadel: Breach of Warranty |
|
Quick Notes |
Wife is driving husbands new car and steering goes out, she is injured and the car was a total loss. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether Mrs. Henningsen, who is not a party to their respective warranties, may claim under implied warranties? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Jury Pl - Implied warranty of merchantability. |
|
Supreme |
o Affirmed |
|
Facts |
Reason |
Rules |
|
o Pl - Henningsen o Df - Bloomfield Motors, Inc What happened? o Husband purchased a Plymouth from Bloomfield motors. It was manufactured by the Chrysler Corporation. o Shortly after the purchase, with less the 500 miles on the odometer, the steering went out. o Mrs. Henningsen was injured and the car was a total loss.
Suit o Sued Bloomfield motors and the Chrysler Corporation. o Breach of Express and implied warranties and for negligence.
Trial Court o Negligence was dismissed. o Implied warranty of merchantability was submitted to the jury. o Verdict for the Pl against both Dfs.
Df Arg o Lack of privity between Mrs. Henningsen and Dfs. |
caveat emptor o The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.
The Claim of Implied Warranty against Manufacturer o An implied warranty of merchantability is an integral part of the transaction. o Obligations on the part of the seller were imposed by operation of law, and did not depend for their existence upon express agreement of the parties. o The right to recover damages on account of personal injuries arising from a breach of warranty. o The particular importance of this advance resides in the fact that under such circumstances strict liability is imposed upon the maker or seller of the product. o Recovery of damages does not depend upon proof of negligence or knowledge of the defect. Purpose: Before this policy buyer beware.
How Dealers Developed o Manufactures ceased selling products directly to consuming public. o A system of independent dealers developed. o The product was sold to the dealer and the dealer sold the product to the public. o Manufacturers were able to transfer to the dealers burdens imposed by the act and thus achieved a large measure of immunity for themselves.
Chrysler Arg o The transaction between the Pl and Bloomfied marked the TERMINAL point of its contractual connection with the car. o Chrysler is NOT a party to the sale by the dealer to the Pl - there was no privity of contract between it and the Pls, and the absences of this privity eliminates any such implied warranty.
What about the disclaimer? o it nether assumes nor authorizes any liability in connection with the sale
Holding o Accordingly, we hold that under modern marketing conditions, when a manufacturer puts a new automobile in the stream of trade and promotes its purchase by the public, an implied warranty that it is reasonably suitable for use as such accompanies it into the hands of the ultimate purchaser. o Absence of agency between the manufacturer and the dealer who makes the ultimate sale is immaterial.
Chrysler Corp Bloomfield Motors Mr. Henningsen Mrs. Henningsen Warranty o This warranty being expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied, and all other obligations or liabilities on its part.
THE EFFECT OF THE DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CLAUSES ON THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY. o It seems obvious in this instance that the motive was to avoid the warranty obligations which are normally incidental to such sales. o The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms, either because the author of the standard contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial) or because all competitors use the same clauses. o The consumer has no bargaining power. Take it or leave it basis. o No urge to be careful. o Studied effort to frustrate the protection of the implied warranty. o We are of the opinion that Chrysler's attempted disclaimer of an implied warranty of merchantability and of the obligations arising there from is so inimical [Unfriendly; hostile] to the public good as to compel an adjudication of its invalidity.
THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF PRIVITY AGAINST MRS. HENNINGSEN. o The precise issue presented is whether Mrs. Henningsen, who is not a party to their respective warranties, may claim under them. In our judgment, the principles of those cases and the supporting texts are just as proximately applicable to her situation. o We are convinced that the cause of justice in this area of the law can be served only by recognizing that she is such a person who, in the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the warranty, might be expected to become a user of the automobile.
Mrs. Henningsen was a foreseeable user.
This case is important because
|
|
|
Rules |
|
Breach of Warranty o When a breach of the warranty results in personal injury to the buyer the law is clear that such damages are recoverable under an ordinary warranty. The right exists whether the warranty sued on is express or implied. And, of course, it is settled that where the buyer or a member of his family driving with his permission suffers injuries because of negligent manufacture or construction of the vehicle, the manufacturer's liability exists.
Unsuitability o Under modern marketing conditions, when a manufacturer puts a new automobile in the stream of trade and promotes its purchase by the public, an implied warranty that it is reasonably suitable for use as such accompanies it into the hands of the ultimate purchaser. Absence of agency between the manufacturer and the dealer who makes the ultimate sale is immaterial |
|
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Class Notes |
|
Wife is driving husbands new car and steering goes out, she is injured and the car was a total loss This case is important because 1. Eliminated privity of contract. 2. Such a disclaimer is so inimical [Unfriendly; hostile] to the public good as to compel an adjudication of its invalidity
Warranty: Two competing contentions o Seller Freedom of K o Buyer This was a take it or leave it contract unenforceable So inimical to the public good o The court falls back on the implied warranty of merchantability since the court said the disclaimer was unenforceable. o Privity The P was a foreseeable user The court says that cars have passenger seats
THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT o It (1) limited the privity requirement, called the (2) disclaimer unconscionable and (3) stated that foreseeable users were covered by the warranty
The Court says the wife is a foreseeable Pl. o We are convinced that the cause of justice in this area of the law can be served only by recognizing that she is such a person who, in the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the warranty, might be expected to become a user of the automobile
What is the Fault Level for a Breach of Warranty o There is No level of fault o You just had to show the goods did not conform to the warranty! o WARRANTY IS A FORM OF STRICT LIABILITY
Holding o When a manufacturer puts a new automobile in the stream of trade and promotes its purchase by the public, an implied warranty that it is reasonably suitable for use as such accompanies it into the hands of the ultimate purchaser. o Absence of agency between the manufacturer and the dealer who makes the ultimate sale is immaterial. |